> /* Common code used when first setting up, and when resuming. */
> static int talk_to_blkback(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> @@ -1527,10 +1582,9 @@ static int talk_to_blkback(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> {
> const char *message = NULL;
> struct xenbus_transaction xbt;
> - int err, i;
> - unsigned int max_page_order = 0;
> + int err;
> + unsigned int i, max_page_order = 0;
> unsigned int ring_page_order = 0;
> - struct blkfront_ring_info *rinfo;
Why? You end up doing the 'struct blkfront_ring_info' decleration
in two of the loops below?
>
> err = xenbus_scanf(XBT_NIL, info->xbdev->otherend,
> "max-ring-page-order", "%u", &max_page_order);
> @@ -1542,7 +1596,8 @@ static int talk_to_blkback(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < info->nr_rings; i++) {
> - rinfo = &info->rinfo[i];
> + struct blkfront_ring_info *rinfo = &info->rinfo[i];
> +
Here..
> @@ -1617,7 +1677,7 @@ again:
>
> for (i = 0; i < info->nr_rings; i++) {
> int j;
> - rinfo = &info->rinfo[i];
> + struct blkfront_ring_info *rinfo = &info->rinfo[i];
And here?
It is not a big deal but I am curious of why add this change?
> @@ -1717,7 +1789,6 @@ static int blkfront_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
>
> mutex_init(&info->mutex);
> spin_lock_init(&info->dev_lock);
> - info->xbdev = dev;
That looks like a spurious change? Ah, I see that we do the same exact
operation earlier in the blkfront_probe.
Let me take this out of this patch and spin it as a seperate patch.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
